• 
• See all for Trefis
• View Print Version

• RIM On The Rebound As A Near-Launch BB10 Inspires Confidence
• JPMorgan Seeks Buyers For Carbon Credits Unit EcoSecurities
• Financials Weekly Notes: BofA, U.S. Bancorp & Credit Suisse

• EPD 100% Rate It
• KMP 50% Rate It
• MMP 100% Rate It
• NRGY 100% Rate It
• PAA 100% Rate It

Submitted by Ron Hiram of Wise Analysis using our Trefis Contributors tool.

On November 6, 2012, Plains All American Pipeline L.P. ( PAA ) reported results of operations for 3Q 2012. Revenues, operating income, net income and earnings before interest, depreciation & amortization and income tax expenses (EBITDA) for 3Q 2012 and for the trailing 12 months ("TTM") are summarized in Table 1:

Table 1: Figures in $ Millions

PAA provided updated financial and operating guidance for 2012, increasing adjusted EBITDA guidance by $137 million to slightly over $2 billion, ~7% increase vs. the guidance provided on 8/6/12 and ~22% over the full year guidance provided at the beginning of the year. This implies a projection of $520 million of adjusted EBITDA for 4Q12. PAA also provided preliminary adjusted EBITDA guidance of $1,925 million (mid-point) for 2013 on the assumption that favorable market conditions will not continue beyond 1Q13. Hence it is lower than the TTM number.

Strong performance was exhibited by all segments, particularly Supply & Logistics, as seen in Table 2:

Table 2: Figures in $ Millions

In 3Q12 PAA wrote down a substantial portion of its investment in the Pier 400 project. The write down, amounting to ~$125 million, is reflected in Table 2 as an increase to depreciation & amortization, hence the large increase in this line item in 3Q12 and TTM ending 9/30/12 vs. the prior year periods. The Pier 400 terminal project involved development of a deepwater petroleum import terminal at Pier 400 and Terminal Island in the Port of Los Angeles for the purpose of handling marine receipts of crude oil and refinery feedstock. During 3Q12 PAA decided not to proceed with this project, hence the write down of its investment in it.

In 2011 the Supply & Logistics segment generated extraordinary profits ($647 million vs. $240 million in 2010). In a prior article I noted the drivers behind this growth. Management cautioned that the margins delivered in 2011 may not be repeated. Results for 1Q 2012 indicated a 3.8% decline in that segment's contribution compared to the prior year period. However, in 2Q12 Supply & Logistics's profit contribution jumped 81% over the prior year period. In 3Q12 we see a 21% decline. Unlike the Facilities and Transportation segments which are predominantly fee based businesses, Supply & Logistics is margin based and hence its results are more volatile.

Given quarterly fluctuations in revenues, working capital needs and other items, it makes sense to review TTM numbers rather than quarterly numbers for the purpose of analyzing changes in reported and sustainable distributable cash flows.

In an article titled Distributable Cash Flow ("DCF") I present the definition of DCF used by Plains All American Pipeline L.P. ( PAA ) and provide a comparison to definitions used by other master limited partnerships. Using PAA's definition, DCF for the TTM ending 9/30/12 was $1,434 million ($4.48 per unit), up from $1,039 million ($3.56 per unit) in the corresponding prior year period. As always, I first attempt to assess how these figures compare with what I call sustainable DCF for these periods and whether distributions were funded by additional debt or issuing additional units.

The generic reasons why DCF as reported by the MLP may differ from sustainable DCF are reviewed in an article titled Estimating Sustainable DCF-Why and How . Applying the method described there to PAA results through 9/30/12 generates the comparison outlined in Table 3 below:

Table 3: Figures in $ Millions

The principal differences between reported DCF and sustainable DCF relate working capital, risk management activities and a variety of items grouped under "Other".

Under PAA's definition, reported DCF always excludes working capital changes, whether positive or negative. My definition of sustainable DCF only excludes working capital generated (I deduct working capital consumed). Despite appearing to be inconsistent, this makes sense because in order to meet my definition of sustainability the MLP should generate enough capital to cover normal working capital needs. On the other hand, cash generated by the MLP through the liquidation or reduction of working capital is not a sustainable source and I therefore ignore it. Over reasonably lengthy measurement periods, working capital generated tends to be offset by needs to invest in working capital. In the TTM ending 9/30/12 working capital consumed cash amounting to $236 million. Management adds back this amount in deriving reported DCF while I do not.

Risk management activities aggregate numerous positive and negative adjustments. For example, the $121 million downward adjustment in inventory valuation in 2Q12 was oddest by gains related to derivatives. I generally do not consider cash generated by risk management activities to be sustainable, although I recognize that one could reasonable argue that bona fide hedging of commodity price risks should be included. The PAA risk management activities seem to be directly related to such hedging, so I could be persuaded to also show what sustainable DCF would be if it included cash generated by risk management activities. But I do not do so since the amounts are relatively small in the periods being reviewed.

PAA also provided preliminary DCF guidance of $1,352 million (mid-point) for 2013 on the assumption that favorable market conditions will not continue beyond 1Q13. Hence it is lower than the TTM number.

Coverage ratios appear strong, as indicated in Table 4 below:

Table 4

The high coverage ratios mean that PAA retains ~$400 to $500 million of excess cash flow as a source of capital and thereby reduces reliance on debt or issuance of additional units that dilute existing holders. The general partner gets 50% of any distributions in excess of $1.35 per unit per annum. Given the current distribution rate is $2.17 per unit per annum, this is a significant burden that pushes up PAA's cost of capital. The excess cash flow is therefore has a very low cost of capital compared to the cost of issuing additional units.

I find it helpful to look at a simplified cash flow statement by netting certain items (e.g., acquisitions against dispositions) and by separating cash generation from cash consumption. Here is what I see for PAA:

Simplified Sources and Uses of Funds

Table 5: Figures in $ Millions

Net cash from operations, less maintenance capital expenditures, less cash related to net income attributable to non-controlling partners exceeded distributions by $410 million in the TTM ending 9/30/12 and by $683 million in the TTM ending 9/30/11. Clearly PAA is not using cash raised from issuance of debt and equity to fund distributions. $2.7billion of the ~$3.1 billion spent (net of sale proceeds) on growth capital projects and acquisitions in the TTM ending 9/30/12 was funded by debt and the issuance of additional partnership units; the ~$400m balance was generated from internal cash flow.

PAA's per unit distributions have grown at a compounded rate of ~7.5% per annum since 2001. They grew 8.1% in the TTM ending 9/30/12 and are forecasted by management to grow 7-8% in 2013. In the TTM ending 6/30/12, distributions per unit increased by 7%.

PAA's balance sheet is strong. At September 30, 2012, long-term debt-to-capitalization ratio was 46%; total debt-to-capitalization ratio was 49%; and long-term debt-to-adjusted EBITDA ratio was 2.9x. Note that $834 million (~12.5%) of total debt is short-term debt that primarily supports hedged inventory. This debt is essentially self-liquidating from the cash proceeds when the inventory is sold.

PAA's current yield is at the low end of the MLP universe. A comparison to some of the MLPs I follow is provided in Table 6 below:

Table 6

PAA, EPD and MMP are all outstanding MLPs. The relatively low yields notwithstanding, their operational results have been excellent and have driven up unit prices, thus generating significant capital gains for the partners. They are a solid choice for more conservative MLP investors. The only reason I would favor EPD and MMP over PAA is the capital structure - no general partner incentive distributions for EPD and MMP vs. 50% in the case of PAA. On the other hand, PAA seems to show greater unit price resiliency in the face of steep declines that have adversely affected MLPs since November 6. From 11/5/2012 to 11/15/2012 EPD fell 7.98% and MMP fell 7.19%, while PAA declined 4.07%.

Related Investing Ideas Articles

• 
  Ameriprise Hikes Dividend As Industry Recovers
  5/17/2013 06:12 PM
• 
  Google, Web Content Providers Seeking Premium Service
  5/17/2013 04:35 PM
• 
  Google YouTube Takes On TV, Vimeo With Pay-Per-View
  5/17/2013 03:44 PM